Governor McAuliffe Signs Executive Order to Continue the Governor’s Task Force on Improving Mental Health Services and Crisis Response

Mental Health Awareness Ribbon (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Governor McAuliffe signed Executive Order #12 yesterday, which continues the Governor’s Task Force on Improving Mental Health Services and Crisis Response.

Speaking about the Executive Order, Governor McAuliffe stated, “I am glad to sign Executive Order 12, which ensures that Virginia leaders continue to focus on access to mental health services and improvements in Virginia’s mental health system as we work to build better communities and grow the Commonwealth’s economy. I am encouraged at the progress we made legislatively this year on reforming our mental health system, but there is still significant work to be done to prevent future tragedies from occurring and to make sure our mental health system works for all Virginians.

“I want to thank Lieutenant Governor Ralph Northam for agreeing to chair the Task Force along with Secretary of Health and Human Resources Bill Hazel and Secretary of Public Safety Brian Moran who will co-chair. I also thank all of the Virginia leaders who are working tirelessly to improve our Commonwealth’s mental health system and the outcomes it delivers for the Virginians we all serve.”

Full Text of the Executive Order is Below:

EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBER TWELVE (2014)

CONTINUING THE GOVERNOR’S TASK FORCE ON IMPROVING

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AND CRISIS RESPONSE

Importance of the Taskforce

Virginians have experienced tremendous heartache as a result of mental health tragedies. It is incumbent upon us to reevaluate how we can better serve our fellow Virginians with mental health needs and examine ways to improve the system by filling in gaps in services and making impactful investments. Collaborative groups of experts, advocates, policy-makers and others have assessed certain aspects of the system and affected critical changes over the years. In particular, following the tragedy at Virginia Tech, Virginia’s leaders drew upon work done by the Virginia Tech Review Panel and the Commission on Mental Health Law Reform to study and investigate the tragedy in order to strengthen the civil commitment process through legislation so that individuals with serious mental illness could receive needed help in a timely manner. The 2008 budget included an infusion of funds to build core community services such as emergency services, case management, and outpatient treatment. Unfortunately, many of these gains were lost as a result of the economic downturn. Last year, targeted investments were made to Virginia’s mental health system upon recommendations from the Governor’s Taskforce on School and Campus Safety.

            While bolstering our ability to respond to mental health crises when they occur, we must continue to seek ways to intervene early and prevent crises from developing. Virginia has crisis prevention services in place, such as outpatient psychiatric consultation, suicide prevention, Program of Assertive Community Treatment (PACT) services, and rehabilitation services. These services are in high demand, and are not consistently available across the Commonwealth.

           

            Virginia’s mental health system has moved away from the days of overcrowded state mental institutions toward a community-based system for individuals to receive treatment in their homes and communities. However, the mental health system remains extremely complex and difficult to navigate for families seeking assistance and for workers within the system. Though state law helps guide the process, practices and services are locally developed. This system allows flexibility to implement the policies that work best for particular regions, though the protocols have not always been in writing and variations have existed across the Commonwealth.

The mental health system for emergency services is dependent upon cooperation and communication from a variety of partners, including community services boards, law enforcement, the judicial system and private hospitals. Effective collaboration among these many parties ensures the most favorable outcomes for people in crisis. While emergency mental health services work for most people, it is critical that the mental health safety net responds effectively to all individuals and families in crisis.

           

            Since taking office, my administration and I have been committed to finding and supporting measures to assure the care and safety of persons suffering mental health crises along with their families, neighbors, and members of the community. Lawmakers acted quickly this session to make numerous changes to Virginia’s mental health laws. Among the changes is extending the emergency custody order (ECO) period from a maximum of six to a total of eight possible hours. This change will give clinicians more time to locate an available psychiatric bed during the ECO period. Our legislators also extended the temporary detention order period from 48 to 72 hours to help ensure individuals have enough treatment time to stabilize prior to the court hearing which determines involuntary admission to a psychiatric hospital.

To help Virginia improve its mental health crisis response, the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services (DBHDS) has taken steps since the beginning of 2014 to outline clear and specific statewide expectations for securing a private or a state psychiatric bed when an individual qualifies for a temporary detention order. In turn, partners across Virginia’s seven DBHDS Partnership Planning Regions, including community services boards and state and private hospitals, have incorporated state guidance into tightened and clarified admission procedures for the regions’ private and state psychiatric beds. In addition, in a collaborative effort among DBHDS, Virginia Health Information, the Virginia Hospital and Healthcare Association and the 40 local community services boards, Virginia launched an online psychiatric bed registry to help clinicians locate available beds in an emergency situation. While the changes that have been made in recent months have been critical, more solutions are needed to improve Virginia’s complicated and chronically underfunded mental health system. Because the system is multifaceted, the solutions must be as well.

Through this Executive Order, I am calling on leaders in the mental health field, law enforcement communities, the judicial system, private hospitals, and individuals receiving mental health services, to seek and recommend solutions that will improve Virginia’s mental health crisis services and help prevent crises from developing.

To accomplish this, in accordance with the authority vested in me by Article V of the Constitution of Virginia and under the laws of the Commonwealth, including but not limited to §§ 2.2-134 and 2.2-135 of the Code of Virginia, and subject to my continuing and ultimate authority and responsibility to act in such matters, I hereby continue the Governor’s Task Force on Improving Mental Health Services and Crisis Response.

Governor’s Task Force on Improving Mental Health Services and Crisis Response

The Task Force’s responsibilities shall include the following:

·       Recommend refinements and clarifications of protocols and procedures for community services boards, state hospitals, law enforcement and receiving hospitals.

·       Review for possible expansion the programs and services that assure prompt response to individuals in mental health crises and their families such as emergency services teams, law enforcement crisis intervention teams (CIT), secure assessment centers, mobile crisis teams, crisis stabilization centers and mental health first aid.

·       Examine extensions or adjustments to the emergency custody order and the temporary detention order period.

·       Explore technological resources and capabilities, equipment, training and procedures to maximize the use of telepsychiatry.

·       Examine the cooperation that exists among the courts, law enforcement and mental health systems in communities that have incorporated crisis intervention teams and cross systems mapping.

·       Identify and examine the availability of and improvements to mental health resources for Virginia’s veterans, service members, and their families and children.

·       Assess state and private provider capacity for psychiatric inpatient care, the assessment process hospitals use to select which patients are appropriate for such care, and explore whether psychiatric bed registries and/or census management teams improve the process for locating beds.

·       Review for possible expansion those services that will provide ongoing support for individuals with mental illness and reduce the frequency and intensity of mental health crises. These services may include rapid, consistent access to outpatient treatment and psychiatric services, as well as co-located primary care and behavioral health services, critical supportive services such as wrap-around stabilizing services, peer support services, PACT services, housing, employment and case management.

·       Recommend how families and friends of a loved one facing a mental health crisis can improve the environment and safety of an individual in crisis.

·       Examine the mental health workforce capacity and scope of practice and recommend any improvements to ensure an adequate mental health workforce.

Task Force Membership

·       The Task Force shall be chaired by the Lieutenant Governor.

·       The Task Force shall be co-chaired by the Secretaries of Health and Human Resources and

Public Safety and Homeland Security;

Membership shall include the following individuals or their designees:

·       The Attorney General of Virginia;

·       Secretary of Veterans and Defense Affairs;

·       Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia;

·       Commissioner of the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services;

·       Commissioner of the Department of Social Services;

·       Director of the Department of Medical Assistance Services;

·       Superintendent of the Virginia State Police;

·       At least three community services board emergency services directors;

·       At least three law enforcement officers, including at least one sheriff;  

·       At least two executive directors of community services boards;

·       At least two magistrates;

·       At least two private hospital emergency department physicians;

·       At least two psychiatrists;

·       At least one representative of a state mental health facility;

·       At least two representatives from Virginia’s private hospital systems;

·       At least two individuals receiving mental health services;

·       At least one member from a statewide veterans organization;

·       At least two family members of individuals receiving services; and

·       Two members of the House of Delegates and two members of the Senate of Virginia.

The Governor may appoint other members as he deems necessary.

Task Force Staffing and Funding

Necessary staff support for the Task Force's work during its existence shall be furnished by the Office of the Governor, and the Offices of the Secretary of Health and Human Resources and the Secretary of Public Safety and Homeland Security, as well as other agencies and offices designated by the Governor. An estimated 750 hours of staff time will be required to support the work of the Task Force.

Necessary funding to support the Commission and its staff shall be provided from federal funds, private contributions, and state funds appropriated for the same purposes as the Task Force, as authorized by § 2.2-135 of the Code of Virginia, as well as any other private sources of funding that may be identified. Estimated direct costs for this Commission are $5,000 per year.

The Task Force shall commence its work promptly and suggest legislative and budgetary proposals that will enable the implementation of identified recommendations. The Task Force shall make recommendations on an ongoing basis and shall provide a final report to the Governor no later than October 1, 2014. The Task Force shall issue such other reports and recommendations as necessary or as requested by the Governor.

Effective Date of the Executive Order

This Executive Order replaces Executive Order No. 68 (2013) issued on December 10, 2013, by Governor Robert F. McDonnell. This Executive Order shall be effective upon signing and, pursuant to §§ 2.2-134 and 2.2-135 of the Code of Virginia, shall remain in force and effect for one year from its signing unless amended or rescinded by further executive order.

Given under my hand and under the Seal of the Commonwealth of Virginia, this 8th day of April, 2014.

Related articles

• Virginia Releases Comprehensive Plan for Outdoor Recreation, Land Conservation
• Governor McAuliffe Statement Following Senate Passage of His Budget Bill
• Governor McAuliffe Signs Legislation Helping Bristol Move Forward on Economic Development Project
• Governor McAuliffe and First Lady To Open Executive Mansion in Celebration of Virginia Historic Garden Week
• Governor McAuliffe, Mayor Sessoms Offer Bipartisan Support for Closing the Coverage Gap
• Governor McAuliffe Statement on House and Senate Budget Proposals

Governor McAuliffe Announces Environmental Excellence Award Winners

Official seal of City of Newport News (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

RICHMOND, VA. – Governor Terry McAuliffe has announced the winners of the 2014 Governor’s Environmental Excellence Awards, which were presented at the Environment Virginia Symposium at Virginia Military Institute in Lexington. 

The awards recognize significant environmental contributions in two categories: sustainability and land conservation. They are given to businesses and industrial facilities, not-for-profit organizations and government agencies.

“These award winners demonstrate a clear commitment to improving the environment for the benefit of all Virginians,” Governor McAuliffe said. “This recognition is well-deserved, and I look forward to ongoing improvements from these winners and other environmental and conservation leaders.” 

The Gold Medal winners are:

·       City of Newport News for its comprehensive sustainability program, a product of citizen input and local government leadership, which maps out a long-term strategic approach to becoming a greener community.

·       Elizabeth River Project for its Dominion Virginia Power Learning Barge, a mobile environmental education center known as the world’s first floating wetlands classroom and America’s “Greenest Vessel” designed to offer a closer look at the challenges facing the watershed.

·       Luck Companies for their commitment to sustainability across all business units, resulting in significant improvements in water conservation, land preservation, waste generation and energy savings.

·       Locust Grove Farm Conservation Easement, which protects more than 16,500 linear feet of forested and vegetated buffers on the Mattaponi River in King and Queen County on property that has been owned by the same family for about 350 years.

Award winners were chosen based on criteria including environmental benefit, stakeholder involvement, public outreach, transferability and innovativeness.

The awards are sponsored by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation.

Additional information on the Governor’s Environmental Excellence Awards is available on the DEQ website at:

www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/PollutionPrevention/GovernorsEnvironmentalExcellenceAwards.aspx.

Related articles

• Governor McAuliffe Signs Legislation Helping Bristol Move Forward on Economic Development Project
• Governor McAuliffe and First Lady To Open Executive Mansion in Celebration of Virginia Historic Garden Week
• Governor McAuliffe Statement Following Senate Passage of His Budget Bill
• Governor McAuliffe Unveils Spring Stewardship Virginia Campaign
• Governor McAuliffe Announces Administration Appointments
• Governor McAuliffe, Mayor Sessoms Offer Bipartisan Support for Closing the Coverage Gap

Gloucester, VA Readers Write In, The Missing R? April, 2014

The huge number of articles on your website about corruption of one form or another in Gloucester County inticed me to do a little looking myself.

 

While reasearching some of the players who appeaer to be involved in some of the questionable occurances within Gloucester government I ran across a development company named HARC,llc.  I have determined each letter in the name HARC stands for a specific person.  H is for Ellis Hall, A is for Walter Alford, C is for Harry Corr and R is for………HaHa!!  We will divulge who the R player is along with the other interesting info very soon.  Looks like we Gotcha silent R!!

 

More later, 

Curiosity Killed the Cat

Our Notes:  We never know what is going to come in or to what level of interest information may be.  This has our curiosity.  This was the entire message as it was sent to us.  Based on our own work, the only name we can come up with to fill that R, in our own best guess is Charles Records.  It's not to say that this is who it is.  But why else would this have been sent to us?  No other name sticks out that ends with an R.  We know who the others are, but not the R.  Interesting.  We can't wait to find out the rest of the story here.

Related articles

• Charles Records, Gloucester, VA School Board Responds
• Gloucester, VA Board of Supervisors Budget Meeting, March 2014 with Spreadsheet
• Gloucester, VA Board of Supervisor's Video and Notes March 18th, 2014
• Gloucester, VA - Where Did the Money Go?
• Continued Corruption in Gloucester County, Virginia
• Gloucester, VA Page Middle School Corruption?

Gloucester, VA Board of Supervisors Meeting, April, 2014

If you have missed the meeting and any subsequent re broadcasts and if you can not find these videos on the county website, here it is for you again.  We continue to see members of the local school come before the board of supervisors, just about demanding money, that is neither the property of the school board nor the board of supervisors.  It belongs to "WE THE TAXPAYERS", and the school board seems to fail to get that message.  Instead they continue to hound the Board of Supervisors to death hoping that our representatives will cave to their unfair pressures.  This is a very sickening tactic.

  But maybe it's one that should be used on the school board asking them when they are going to step up and actually start teaching the children of this county and stop failing the children of this county with policies that are meaningless at best.  We keep hearing that it's for the children yet we see that it's more like for the few at the top who seem to treat it all like a private country club for themselves.

Related articles

• Gloucester, VA Board of Supervisors Budget Meeting, March 2014 with Spreadsheet
• Gloucester, VA Board of Supervisor's Video and Notes March 18th, 2014
• Gloucester, VA Board of Supervisors Budget Meetings Open To Public
• Gloucester, VA Board of Supervisors Meeting February, 2014 Video
• Gloucester, VA Board of Supervisors Plan On Recording Budget Sessions
• Gloucester, VA BoS Meeting Notes and Spreadsheets, March, 2014

Federalist Papers No. 43. The Same Subject Continued (The Powers Conferred by the Constitution Further Considered)

For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, January 23, 1788

MADISON

To the People of the State of New York:

THE FOURTH class comprises the following miscellaneous powers:

1. A power "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing, for a limited time, to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

The utility of this power will scarcely be questioned. The copyright of authors has been solemnly adjudged, in Great Britain, to be a right of common law. The right to useful inventions seems with equal reason to belong to the inventors. The public good fully coincides in both cases with the claims of individuals. The States cannot separately make effectual provisions for either of the cases, and most of them have anticipated the decision of this point, by laws passed at the instance of Congress.

2. "To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States; and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislatures of the States in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings."

The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of government, carries its own evidence with it. It is a power exercised by every legislature of the Union, I might say of the world, by virtue of its general supremacy. Without it, not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity; but a dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy. This consideration has the more weight, as the gradual accumulation of public improvements at the stationary residence of the government would be both too great a public pledge to be left in the hands of a single State, and would create so many obstacles to a removal of the government, as still further to abridge its necessary independence. The extent of this federal district is sufficiently circumscribed to satisfy every jealousy of an opposite nature. And as it is to be appropriated to this use with the consent of the State ceding it; as the State will no doubt provide in the compact for the rights and the consent of the citizens inhabiting it; as the inhabitants will find sufficient inducements of interest to become willing parties to the cession; as they will have had their voice in the election of the government which is to exercise authority over them; as a municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them; and as the authority of the legislature of the State, and of the inhabitants of the ceded part of it, to concur in the cession, will be derived from the whole people of the State in their adoption of the Constitution, every imaginable objection seems to be obviated.

The necessity of a like authority over forts, magazines, etc., established by the general government, is not less evident. The public money expended on such places, and the public property deposited in them, requires that they should be exempt from the authority of the particular State. Nor would it be proper for the places on which the security of the entire Union may depend, to be in any degree dependent on a particular member of it. All objections and scruples are here also obviated, by requiring the concurrence of the States concerned, in every such establishment.

3. "To declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attained."

As treason may be committed against the United States, the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it. But as new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the convention have, with great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it, and restraining the Congress, even in punishing it, from extending the consequences of guilt beyond the person of its author.

4. "To admit new States into the Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the legislatures of the States concerned, as well as of the Congress."

In the articles of Confederation, no provision is found on this important subject. Canada was to be admitted of right, on her joining in the measures of the United States; and the other COLONIES, by which were evidently meant the other British colonies, at the discretion of nine States. The eventual establishment of NEW STATES seems to have been overlooked by the compilers of that instrument. We have seen the inconvenience of this omission, and the assumption of power into which Congress have been led by it. With great propriety, therefore, has the new system supplied the defect. The general precaution, that no new States shall be formed, without the concurrence of the federal authority, and that of the States concerned, is consonant to the principles which ought to govern such transactions. The particular precaution against the erection of new States, by the partition of a State without its consent, quiets the jealousy of the larger States; as that of the smaller is quieted by a like precaution, against a junction of States without their consent.

5. "To dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States," with a proviso, that "nothing in the Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

This is a power of very great importance, and required by considerations similar to those which show the propriety of the former. The proviso annexed is proper in itself, and was probably rendered absolutely necessary by jealousies and questions concerning the Western territory sufficiently known to the public.

6. "To guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government; to protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence."

In a confederacy founded on republican principles, and composed of republican members, the superintending government ought clearly to possess authority to defend the system against aristocratic or monarchial innovations. The more intimate the nature of such a union may be, the greater interest have the members in the political institutions of each other; and the greater right to insist that the forms of government under which the compact was entered into should be SUBSTANTIALLY maintained. But a right implies a remedy; and where else could the remedy be deposited, than where it is deposited by the Constitution? Governments of dissimilar principles and forms have been found less adapted to a federal coalition of any sort, than those of a kindred nature. "As the confederate republic of Germany," says Montesquieu, "consists of free cities and petty states, subject to different princes, experience shows us that it is more imperfect than that of Holland and Switzerland." "Greece was undone," he adds, "as soon as the king of Macedon obtained a seat among the Amphictyons." In the latter case, no doubt, the disproportionate force, as well as the monarchical form, of the new confederate, had its share of influence on the events. It may possibly be asked, what need there could be of such a precaution, and whether it may not become a pretext for alterations in the State governments, without the concurrence of the States themselves. These questions admit of ready answers. If the interposition of the general government should not be needed, the provision for such an event will be a harmless superfluity only in the Constitution. But who can say what experiments may be produced by the caprice of particular States, by the ambition of enterprising leaders, or by the intrigues and influence of foreign powers? To the second question it may be answered, that if the general government should interpose by virtue of this constitutional authority, it will be, of course, bound to pursue the authority. But the authority extends no further than to a GUARANTY of a republican form of government, which supposes a pre-existing government of the form which is to be guaranteed. As long, therefore, as the existing republican forms are continued by the States, they are guaranteed by the federal Constitution. Whenever the States may choose to substitute other republican forms, they have a right to do so, and to claim the federal guaranty for the latter. The only restriction imposed on them is, that they shall not exchange republican for antirepublican Constitutions; a restriction which, it is presumed, will hardly be considered as a grievance.

A protection against invasion is due from every society to the parts composing it. The latitude of the expression here used seems to secure each State, not only against foreign hostility, but against ambitious or vindictive enterprises of its more powerful neighbors. The history, both of ancient and modern confederacies, proves that the weaker members of the union ought not to be insensible to the policy of this article.

Protection against domestic violence is added with equal propriety. It has been remarked, that even among the Swiss cantons, which, properly speaking, are not under one government, provision is made for this object; and the history of that league informs us that mutual aid is frequently claimed and afforded; and as well by the most democratic, as the other cantons. A recent and well-known event among ourselves has warned us to be prepared for emergencies of a like nature.

At first view, it might seem not to square with the republican theory, to suppose, either that a majority have not the right, or that a minority will have the force, to subvert a government; and consequently, that the federal interposition can never be required, but when it would be improper. But theoretic reasoning, in this as in most other cases, must be qualified by the lessons of practice. Why may not illicit combinations, for purposes of violence, be formed as well by a majority of a State, especially a small State as by a majority of a county, or a district of the same State; and if the authority of the State ought, in the latter case, to protect the local magistracy, ought not the federal authority, in the former, to support the State authority? Besides, there are certain parts of the State constitutions which are so interwoven with the federal Constitution, that a violent blow cannot be given to the one without communicating the wound to the other. Insurrections in a State will rarely induce a federal interposition, unless the number concerned in them bear some proportion to the friends of government. It will be much better that the violence in such cases should be repressed by the superintending power, than that the majority should be left to maintain their cause by a bloody and obstinate contest. The existence of a right to interpose, will generally prevent the necessity of exerting it.

Is it true that force and right are necessarily on the same side in republican governments? May not the minor party possess such a superiority of pecuniary resources, of military talents and experience, or of secret succors from foreign powers, as will render it superior also in an appeal to the sword? May not a more compact and advantageous position turn the scale on the same side, against a superior number so situated as to be less capable of a prompt and collected exertion of its strength? Nothing can be more chimerical than to imagine that in a trial of actual force, victory may be calculated by the rules which prevail in a census of the inhabitants, or which determine the event of an election! May it not happen, in fine, that the minority of CITIZENS may become a majority of PERSONS, by the accession of alien residents, of a casual concourse of adventurers, or of those whom the constitution of the State has not admitted to the rights of suffrage? I take no notice of an unhappy species of population abounding in some of the States, who, during the calm of regular government, are sunk below the level of men; but who, in the tempestuous scenes of civil violence, may emerge into the human character, and give a superiority of strength to any party with which they may associate themselves.

In cases where it may be doubtful on which side justice lies, what better umpires could be desired by two violent factions, flying to arms, and tearing a State to pieces, than the representatives of confederate States, not heated by the local flame? To the impartiality of judges, they would unite the affection of friends. Happy would it be if such a remedy for its infirmities could be enjoyed by all free governments; if a project equally effectual could be established for the universal peace of mankind!

Should it be asked, what is to be the redress for an insurrection pervading all the States, and comprising a superiority of the entire force, though not a constitutional right? the answer must be, that such a case, as it would be without the compass of human remedies, so it is fortunately not within the compass of human probability; and that it is a sufficient recommendation of the federal Constitution, that it diminishes the risk of a calamity for which no possible constitution can provide a cure.

Among the advantages of a confederate republic enumerated by Montesquieu, an important one is, "that should a popular insurrection happen in one of the States, the others are able to quell it. Should abuses creep into one part, they are reformed by those that remain sound."

7. "To consider all debts contracted, and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, as being no less valid against the United States, under this Constitution, than under the Confederation."

This can only be considered as a declaratory proposition; and may have been inserted, among other reasons, for the satisfaction of the foreign creditors of the United States, who cannot be strangers to the pretended doctrine, that a change in the political form of civil society has the magical effect of dissolving its moral obligations.

Among the lesser criticisms which have been exercised on the Constitution, it has been remarked that the validity of engagements ought to have been asserted in favor of the United States, as well as against them; and in the spirit which usually characterizes little critics, the omission has been transformed and magnified into a plot against the national rights. The authors of this discovery may be told, what few others need to be informed of, that as engagements are in their nature reciprocal, an assertion of their validity on one side, necessarily involves a validity on the other side; and that as the article is merely declaratory, the establishment of the principle in one case is sufficient for every case. They may be further told, that every constitution must limit its precautions to dangers that are not altogether imaginary; and that no real danger can exist that the government would DARE, with, or even without, this constitutional declaration before it, to remit the debts justly due to the public, on the pretext here condemned.

8. "To provide for amendments to be ratified by three fourths of the States under two exceptions only."

That useful alterations will be suggested by experience, could not but be foreseen. It was requisite, therefore, that a mode for introducing them should be provided. The mode preferred by the convention seems to be stamped with every mark of propriety. It guards equally against that extreme facility, which would render the Constitution too mutable; and that extreme difficulty, which might perpetuate its discovered faults. It, moreover, equally enables the general and the State governments to originate the amendment of errors, as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side, or on the other. The exception in favor of the equality of suffrage in the Senate, was probably meant as a palladium to the residuary sovereignty of the States, implied and secured by that principle of representation in one branch of the legislature; and was probably insisted on by the States particularly attached to that equality. The other exception must have been admitted on the same considerations which produced the privilege defended by it.

9. "The ratification of the conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States, ratifying the same."

This article speaks for itself. The express authority of the people alone could give due validity to the Constitution. To have required the unanimous ratification of the thirteen States, would have subjected the essential interests of the whole to the caprice or corruption of a single member. It would have marked a want of foresight in the convention, which our own experience would have rendered inexcusable.

Two questions of a very delicate nature present themselves on this occasion: 1. On what principle the Confederation, which stands in the solemn form of a compact among the States, can be superseded without the unanimous consent of the parties to it? 2. What relation is to subsist between the nine or more States ratifying the Constitution, and the remaining few who do not become parties to it?

The first question is answered at once by recurring to the absolute necessity of the case; to the great principle of self-preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and of nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed. PERHAPS, also, an answer may be found without searching beyond the principles of the compact itself. It has been heretofore noted among the defects of the Confederation, that in many of the States it had received no higher sanction than a mere legislative ratification. The principle of reciprocality seems to require that its obligation on the other States should be reduced to the same standard. A compact between independent sovereigns, founded on ordinary acts of legislative authority, can pretend to no higher validity than a league or treaty between the parties. It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach, committed by either of the parties, absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void. Should it unhappily be necessary to appeal to these delicate truths for a justification for dispensing with the consent of particular States to a dissolution of the federal pact, will not the complaining parties find it a difficult task to answer the MULTIPLIED and IMPORTANT infractions with which they may be confronted? The time has been when it was incumbent on us all to veil the ideas which this paragraph exhibits. The scene is now changed, and with it the part which the same motives dictate.

The second question is not less delicate; and the flattering prospect of its being merely hypothetical forbids an overcurious discussion of it. It is one of those cases which must be left to provide for itself. In general, it may be observed, that although no political relation can subsist between the assenting and dissenting States, yet the moral relations will remain uncancelled. The claims of justice, both on one side and on the other, will be in force, and must be fulfilled; the rights of humanity must in all cases be duly and mutually respected; whilst considerations of a common interest, and, above all, the remembrance of the endearing scenes which are past, and the anticipation of a speedy triumph over the obstacles to reunion, will, it is hoped, not urge in vain MODERATION on one side, and PRUDENCE on the other.

PUBLIUS

Learn More About American History:  Visit Jamestown, Yorktown and Colonial Williamsburg Living Museums in Virginia.

Related articles

• Anti Federalist Papers No. 41-43B - Powers of The Constitution Continued
• Anti Federalist Papers No. 30-31 - A Virginia Anti-Federalist On The Issue Of Taxation
• Anti Federalist Papers No. 39 - Appearance And Reality - The Form Is Federal; The Effect Is National
• Federalist Papers No 7 - Dangers From Dissensions Between The States
• Federalist Papers No. 38. The Same Subject Continued, and the Incoherence of the Objections to the New Plan Exposed.
• Federalist Papers No. 25. The Same Subject Continued (The Powers Necessary to the Common Defense Further Considered)

Crippling Medical Care Laws That Are Destroying Competition

Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services 2 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By Stephen Barrett, M.D.

Chapel Hill, North Carolina

I buy several prescription medications from online pharmacies in Canada and other countries where prices are much lower for the same drugs – often 80% lower! Millions of Americans like me do this safely, buying from regulated pharmacies with verified licenses. But next year these drugs could be seized and destroyed by U.S. Customs without notice, depending on what the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, decides.

Although the law says that ordering most medications from outside the country is not legal (a law that should be changed), the government has not taken actions against individuals like me who purchase small quantities for personal use. To order safely you just need a valid prescription filled by a licensed pharmacy, and you can’t order a controlled substance, like a pain medicine.

Drug companies are lobbying the government very hard to take actions that would keep Americans paying inflated prices while they sell the same drugs for much less outside the U.S.  Meanwhile, tens of millions of Americans don’t fill their prescriptions due to high drug costs. 

Our Notes:  The above was sent to us through a petition asking us to sign and stop this kind of anti competition in health care prescriptions.  If big pharma wants to argue that Americans are not safe because there is no way to control those drugs coming from other countries, the same arguments can be made for everything pouring into this country from any other country.  The argument is just not valid.  Americans should be able to get medications from anywhere in the world in order to save money and not be held at gunpoint to pay the highest prices in the world for the same medications.

Related articles

• US Officials Target Escalating Drug Overdoses
• Organized Crime Ring The Pharmaceutical Drug Cartel
• Why Widespread Nutritional Deficiencies Are a Reality
• Violent Side Effects of Antidepressants
• Scoring heroin on Philadelphia's streets
• A Psychiatrist's Perspective on Using Drugs

Governor McAuliffe Statement Following Senate Passage of His Budget Bill

English: VIrginia State Senate (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Governor Terry McAuliffe released the following statement following the Virginia Senate’s vote to pass Senate Bill 5003, the budget bill the Governor introduced at the beginning of this special session:

“Today the Virginia Senate acted in bipartisan fashion to pass a balanced, responsible budget that funds a number of priorities that will make life better for the Virginia families we serve. When I introduced this bill, I asked members of the General Assembly to put politics aside, offer their ideas for compromise and pass a budget. That is what the Senate did, and the budget they passed offers Virginia state employees a two percent raise, funds payments to families that lose a loved one in the line of duty, and includes a market-based plan to use our federal tax dollars to close the health care coverage gap.

“Now it is the responsibility of the House of Delegates to take this budget bill up, make their amendments and pass it so that legislators from both chambers can get to work negotiating a final product in a conference committee. As House leaders have said repeatedly over the past few weeks, Virginians are awaiting a budget. It is now up to the House of Delegates to put politics aside and act on the bill that is before them so that we can get Virginians the budget they deserve.”

Related articles

• Governor McAuliffe Signs Caboose Budget Bill
• Governor McAuliffe, Mayor Sessoms Offer Bipartisan Support for Closing the Coverage Gap
• Governor McAuliffe Statement on General Assembly Votes on Marketplace Virginia Amendment
• Governor McAuliffe Statement on House and Senate Budget Proposals
• Governor McAuliffe Signs SB381 Transferring Homeland Security Responsibilities to the Secretary of Public Safety
• Governor McAuliffe Statement on the Passing of Former State Senator Benjamin J. Lambert III